V K GUJRAL Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition of Shri V.K. Gujral is for quashing of the order of A.C.M.M., New Delhi, dated 30-5-1985, whereby on the complaint of Shri K.K. Sood, Air Customs Officer, Palam Airport, New Delhi, the petitioner was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.

(2.) Before the factual and legal contentions raised by learned Counsel for the department are taken into consideration, it will be relevant to keep in mind the salient features of the complaint. On 5-2-1985, the Customs Officer examined a consignment consisting of 5 packages covered against Airway Bill No. 057-74752462, dated 23-1-1985, which landed at Delhi Airport vide Flight No. AF-175, dated 24-1-1985. The importer of the said consignment was Mohd. Ali Abdi, Second Secretary, Somalia Embassy, New Delhi. The said consignment consisted of T.V./V.C.R./Music System and Washing Machine. Due to suspicion, the said consignment was inspected in the presence of S/Mohd. Ali Abdi and Rakesh Sood, Deputy Chief of Protocol, Ministry of External Affairs, in addition to independent witnesses. This resulted in the recovery of 200 gold biscuits of 10 tolas each bearing foreign markings. Shri Abdi, on enquiry, could not produce any permission from the Reserve Bank of India to cover the import of the said gold which was seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Subsequently, the statements of Shri Abdi as well as the authorised clearing agent M/s. Kaydee and Company, New Delhi, and other connected persons, including the present petitioner, were recorded. On the basis of the oral as well as the documentary evidence which came to the possession of the investigating agency, the department was of the opinion that the present petitioner was knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion or attempt at evasion of prohibitions imposed on seized gold under Notification No. 12(II)/F/1/48, dated 25-8-1948 issued under Section 8(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (corresponding to Section 13(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973), which prohibitions, by virtue of Section 67 read with Section 81 of the Act, are deemed to be restrictions imposed under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and as such the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 135(l)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 . The complaint was filed in the Court of the A.C.M.M., New Delhi on 29-5-1985. As stated earlier, after going through the complaint, the statements of the witnesses and the documents, the learned Magistrate found sufficient ground for proceeding against the present petitioner and took cognizance of the same. It is against this very order the present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) Show cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the petition be not admitted by this Court on 22-1- 1986. The petition has not yet been admitted. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and with their help gone through the record carefully.